If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: small cell foundation

Michael and I are good friends...there is far more that we agree on than disagree on...but the disagreements make for a bit more drama This is a bit of rant (or tirade)…but it is thoughtful, and I think reveals some of the issues and history that are at play.

Originally Posted by Michael Palmer

....How about it Dean? You seem to have a firm grasp on the method, and have multiple reasons why ALL the studies have been done incorrectly.

There is one overriding reason that all the studies have been done incorrectly...none of the researchers seem to be willing to base their studies on what people are actually doing, are actually reporting success with.

If I were to start some academic research on the economics of running a nuc and queen producing business in Vermont, I would have a few options of how to setup the model.

If one was not aware of what you and Kirk teach (or not bothered to understand it well enough to appreciate the advantages), the obvious thing to do would be to split in the spring to make up winter losses, and harvest some frames or bust up yards at various times throughout the year for the nucs....and buy in fancy "3 letter queen" stock every year. The conventional wisdom is that wintering nucs in Vermont is iffy at best (this is not to say that you haven't been changing this).

You could do the above, and you could show that it is either profitable or not.

But if the academic instead looked at what people are actually doing in Vermont to run a nuc and queen production operation....especially if they looked at what Mike Palmer was doing, they would see a method that would probably produce more nucs/year, produce nucs with a higher market value (overwintered nucs with overwintered queens that are selected for honey production in a commercial honey production operation in the north), _and_ produce a commercial honey crop to boot. Such research (based upon some proven successful models) would be much more valuable than a research done with procedures determined by the researchers first instincts.

Comparing the two, one would see not only a huge difference in economic outcome, but also see an operation that is much more robust. Not only is your system elegant, it actually works and has some redundancy built into it. I'm sure you feel the same way, otherwise I don't think you would care as much as you do that people understand what you are talking about.

As recently as two years ago, one of our state bee inspectors (you know the one) told me to my face that nucs won't survive in Massachusetts over the winter. ...yes, I feel the same way when I'm told by Marla Spivak to my face that non-AHB won't/can't draw small cell comb without foundation and she say's "no thank you" to an offer to bring her some the next day....it's as if you aren't actually doing what you are doing....it's as if no one wants to know.

I know that for USDA trials held in these parts (the one run by Jeff Pettis on tree injected imidacloprid specifically), HFCS feeding is part of the protocall. No one has to mix anything, and its easy on the beekeeper to feed and measure. I think you have commented recently that you moved away from HFCS because nuc survival, specifically, suffered.

What if there were a study, using HFCS as winter feed as part of the protocall, that claims to prove that nucs can’t be overwintered effectively in the north? Using “package” style queens for the nucs? Doesn’t “feed up to weight” in the fall, but opens hives to put HFCS patties on the nucs every week? You would say (loudly, I imagine), “But that isn’t what works.” “I’ve shown what works, but you have to look at the details and at the operation and management as a whole system.”

RIGHT?

What if there were 10 such studies? What if Jim Fischer threatened your publisher with litigation if they didn’t recall the book you wrote talking about what you actually do? What if Peter Borst posted a bogus 1star review on Amazon…removed it when there were negative comments made in response, and then reposted a similar one (in an effort to get rid of the negative comments)? What if Amazon (on their own) found it to be abuse, and deleted all traces of the reviews? Now, what if neither of the above had actually read the book you wrote? What if they didn’t even know what you wrote, yet thought that it was important enough to discredit that they bother to take the above actions? That would feel pretty weird? …WOULDN’T IT?

This is essentially what is going on WRT small cell and treatment free beekeeping.

Last I read, you said that there's no need for such a study, as the proponents of SC know it's the answer, and don't have to prove anything to anyone.

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to (I’m sure I’ve said something like that, I’m just not recalling the context), but it does bring up a few thoughts.

Do you remember what your first words were to me when we first met? I do...you said, "I think it is terribly unfair what they are doing to you over on Bee-L." (I’m pretty sure that’s word for word).

At the time, I was posting to bee-l about some of the research and thoughts we had regarding the gut microflora. Statler and Waldorf over there were having a field day, while we were busy going over everything as Ramona was giving her first presentation on the gut microflora. This was October/November 2008, and well before these issues were being discussed by anyone....certainly before the 3 part series in ABJ June-Jully 2009. You should listen to the recording of the talk…she hadn’t given a public talk since college, and was really nervous. Please remember that she assembled this without the aid of any of the articles, discussion, or knowledge that we have 4 years later…she had a vision and went with it.

The stuff we were saying back then is largely commonly accepted nowadays, but if you read the discussions on Bee-L from the time, you will understand why Michael felt I was being treated unfairly.

This is typical of the environment in which we’ve been able to try and discuss these ideas….

• A Bee-L moderator posts a paper touting antibiotics as being beneficial to all manner of livestock. When I replied after looking at the paper, that the paper was the product of a trade group for animal meds, and was entirely made up of reps from major pharmaceutical companies (Phyzer, Bayer, etc), the mod replied back privately stating simply that this fact was not worthy of discussion, and my post would not be put through (there were no issues with personal attacks or any of that stuff).

• The same moderator claims to lose all of his bees by following the “advice” of the treatment free folks….except that in addition to the obvious things that deviated from what those who’s “advice” he claimed to have followed, he used two antibiotics (TM and Tylan), at least one miticide, and I can’t remember if/what else. So much for testing anything about not treating…but this remains his claim….his failed no treatment experiment.

• More recently, the _same_ moderator posted results of how the bees drew some pf100’s (small cell) vs some other brand of 5.4mm plastic frame/foundation. He reported that the bees much preferred the other brand…that they didn’t all draw the pf frames well. ….later to mention that the other brand was wax coated, and the pf frames were bare.

DUH!

Things are quite a bit better here on beesource in this regard, but there is also a different demographic here, and some discussions would be better served by being allowed to happen on Bee-l. I say all this just to highlight that we have been trying to get to the bottom of a lot of this for a very long time…and we haven’t had much support from “the establishment”. This is the long way around of explaining why I might have been dismissive of doing these studies…the other (most important reason) is that they are not done well, and the conclusions are not supported by the work. Why perpetuate more of the same?

I'm not criticizing anyone, or trying to dis-credit anything. I'm only getting impatient with the attacks on the SC studies, with nothing better coming out of the SC camp.

Mike, you would be the first to criticize any work that I did where I:

• Measured 10 cells in the middle of each side of a frame, averaged them, and called that “the mean cell size” for that frame. …Seeley did this.

• Reported that overwintering nucs in New England is not possible…without spending any time talking to a beekeeper that overwinters nucs in New England. …Seeley did this with respect to small cell.

• Pretended that molded plastic comb is the equivalent of wax comb in a side by side comparison. …Seeley did this.

• Found the most mite ridden bees I could find, let them fester for 6 weeks, then break them down into nucs to see if they will survive winter (conventional wisdom is that nucs do a better job of handling mites, especially if they are newly made up…..but will this work in the most heavily infested bees you can find? Are such results relevant?) ….Seeley did this wrt small cell.

• Claimed that none of my experimental or control colonies contained any drone comb. That none of the colonies tried to rear a single drone. That at most these hives (with no other drone comb) built 25 drone cells in a month…but never tried to rear a single drone. …This is exactly what Seeley claims with both the control and experimental colonies….it is not believable.

I’m with you…I want to see some good work in this area…but not critiquing the incredibly bad work done so far (no matter who’s name is on the paper) is not going to make that happen. I was excited that Tom Seeley was looking into small cell, and you will see that I posted several times that I was looking forward to reading his study. I was disappointed.

Remember in 2009...I asked you for the same. Gave you 2 1/2 years to put it together...really would have included your report at EAS. Ramona said, at the time..."He's a really smart guy and could do a good job".

Yes, I do remember, and I was flattered. …but I think the Paul Harvey version (“the rest of the story”) needs to be told in order for this to be honest.

You did ask, but there were conditions. It had to be something with “real science” behind it..some hard data to work with. I have a lot of respect for you, and I had (and have) no doubt that we would generally agree on what kind of work would meet that standard. I have some ideas of some more simple things that would be interesting, but it remains that I have no budget, no grad students, and a limited time. Is anyone asking Tom Seeley to do research on his own time and on his own dime?

Michael, now that your EAS is over and done, how many speakers can you name that presented who presented work that you would consider up to that standard who work for themselves? I’m sure there were a few with small SARE grants, I certainly would consider your data on your overwintering operation as valid. Most, I expect, do research as a career. They are employed by institutions that pay them a salary, and their job is to secure funding and carry out the research.

How many speakers who were asked to speak were told that they had to have “scientifically valid data” to back them up as a precondition? Did the guy who claimed to be able to affect the shape of water crystals by saying “I love you” rather than “I hate you” to a freezing glass of water have data? Given that presentation, do you think that anything that I would present would be any kind of embarrassment? I know you didn't have total control of the program, but we were excluded for not having better "science" than we have, while Tom Seeley would have been presenting "valid research" if he talked about his small cell study...meanwhile you have the angry ice crystals being presented next door....I'm supposed to feel like I'm being treated fairly?

There was no funding offered. EAS notoriously doesn’t reimburse speakers for expenses. I appreciated the offer (and I still do), but it is not quite as simple as you make it out to be, it isn’t quite being fair to me at all, in fact. Remember, to some extent, it is the opportunity to present to the same crowd that has already dismissed anything that I have to say.

You did have Tom Seeley at EAS?…did he speak about his small cell study? He did have funding. He did have a reputation to uphold. He did have the resources of Cornell behind him. He did have 3 years to do the study. He did have a phd and years of experience behind his model and execution. He failed miserably. I don’t know what the funding was, but it was for 3 years. At the very least the write up could have been more honest with the write up…fortunately we have the funding reports (that I posted earlier) to let us know how things unfolded. Telling me I can’t critique such a bad study unless I do my own is, frankly, insulting. I’m not criticizing it for no reason…it’s simply lousy, and the beekeeping community should demand better (that includes you).

I know how busy you are...as posted recently in discussions with squarepeg. But, we're all busy.How about it?

Well, as you can see from the rough outline I posted yesterday, I have some ideas, and Ramona and I are discussing how to get all this stuff funded….but thanks for poking a bit at it…it has stimulated some new ideas that might be workable.

Re: small cell foundation

Dean, the UGA study was funded by the Georgia Beekeepers Assn (sorry Ace...no big bucks mega outfits pushing for preferred results) to the tune of $2500..if my memory serves me. No grad student. Much of the work and material was supplied by volunteer/donation. I'm sure you could do some of the same.
Keep it as short and simple as humanly possible (this is one area I'm afraid you will have problems) otherwise the number and variety of variables will grow exponentially.
Good luck...

Dan www.boogerhillbee.com
Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards

Re: small cell foundation

This is just speculation...I have no data to base this upon...just a hunch.

I think the Seeley study was mostly the work of the undergrad involved. My recollection from talking to Tom briefly about it (between when it was done and when it was published) was that he didn't even claim to know much about the details.

This doesn't excuse him...he should have made sure that at least the writeup was good with the data they had...he didn't, and he is listed as the PI. Unfortunately, it is impossible to get to the bottom of such things...no one can afford to admit that they didn't perform a study well, as it will certainly affect future funding.

Re: small cell foundation

This is one of the Jennifer Berry studies? Is she not paid for her time as part of her job? Does she not have a reasonable entomology dept. supporting her (run by Keith Delaplane)?

Sheeesh! Do you think all of her time was devoted to this study? What support do you think she got from the entomology dept? Or Keith Delaplane?
As I said....$2500. Small Cell beekeeper Bill Owens was one of the investigators. He supplied much of the work and material. He never collected a dime. There were a number of others who made contributions of labor and material. If you are unable to find that sort of support....sorry..
I didn't bring it up to put you in a snit....but so be it.

Dan www.boogerhillbee.com
Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards

Re: small cell foundation

Originally Posted by beemandan

Sheeesh! Do you think all of her time was devoted to this study? What support do you think she got from the entomology dept? Or Keith Delaplane?

Are you saying that she did this all on her own time...outside the time she is getting paid for to work for the university in her position as Apicultural Research Coordinator and Lab Manager? That no university supplies or facilities were used? Somehow I doubt it...but maybe...you tell me. I assume Keith provided some support...as his was one of the 3 names on the paper, no?

As I said....$2500. Small Cell beekeeper Bill Owens was one of the investigators. He supplied much of the work and material. He never collected a dime. There were a number of others who made contributions of labor and material. If you are unable to find that sort of support....sorry..
I didn't bring it up to put you in a snit....but so be it.

I'm not in a snit....but there are a few things here:
1. Jennifer was working as part of her salaried position...no?

2. The same people who tout this study refuse to consider the obvious faults in the Seeley study. Until we can get past that, there is no way that I'm going to spend my time explaining what is wrong with the UGA study...it's a waste of my time if no one is willing to actually read the studies in question and recognize the faults.

3. Until we consider the merits of this study specifically, it is impossible to evaluate if that $2500 and all the volunteered time and equipment was well spent.

Re: small cell foundation

I’ve read the three studies I mentioned earlier. Berry/Delaplane, Hayes/Ellis and Seeley.
You and I have already made our thoughts on those studies clear. I have no intention of repeating those circuitous, long winded, semantically driven, purposeless debates with you.
I pointed out that a study could be conducted on a shoestring if the parties involved were able round up volunteer support. I now understand that you are unable to do that.
Now….go ahead and have the prerequisite last word.
As I said before….good luck.

Dan www.boogerhillbee.com
Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards

Re: small cell foundation

I pointed out that a study could be conducted on a shoestring if the parties involved were able round up volunteer support. I now understand that you are unable to do that.

This isn't a fair characterization at all of what you have pointed out. 2 of the 3 investigators on the study are salaried researchers who were being paid a salary (and benefits) to secure such funding and volunteer resources to do this exact work...at least two reasonably compensated, highly trained individuals were involved on the universities time...to pretend that this was done with merely $2500 is dishonest.

Re: small cell foundation

Originally Posted by deknow

OK, I apologize....to pretend this [UGA Study] was done with merely $2500 is honest.

deknow

I never pretended anything. I simply pointed out that a trial could be conducted on a small budget. You've attempted to portray the figure $2500 in absolute terms.
Until today I accepted that you and I had strongly held, adult differences of opinion.

Dan www.boogerhillbee.com
Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards

Re: small cell foundation

@Dean - I would welcome a study such as the one you are describing and I know that this Bee-L lurker would welcome it as well. While it is easy to make offers, and often times once made they are regretted, what can I do to help make the study happen?

Re: small cell foundation

deknow

I really don't have much of a dog in this fight but as the old saying goes "if ya want something done right, you might have to just do it yourself"..I for one would certainly welcome an additional study regarding small cell application for treatment free beekeeping. I happen to use different sized cell foundation here and I look forward to tracking my individual results in keeping my bees alive and healthy. I view sc beekeeping as hardly a revolutionary development but frankly I would rather argue the merits of really good tequila vs. the size of cells my bees make, or what I try to force them to make. However in the interest of science (and you most likely being a Red Sox and Patriots fan), I will go on record today as saying I will donate a minimum of $25.00 to any potential sc study that you happen to be involved with in the next 3 years. Now, as this website alone offers 16,000 members, even a commitment of a mere $25.00 from 25% of that population would rake in $100,000 big ones. That would surely buy a few cups of research and another unbiased scientific evaluation. Lastly it would appear to me that there just might be a few bucks available from the manufacturers of sc foundation and or plastic frames who might also wish to see some positive energy shed on one of their products. In closing, my offer remains as a starting point for any possible future research regarding small cell beekeeping. Let me know where to send the first check.

* This offer is rescinded if for any reason you would happen to be supportive of any N.Y. teams.

Cheers (and go Patriots)

"Tradition becomes our security, and when the mind is secure it is in decay".....Krishnamurti